The judgment emphasizes the separation of judicial and executive powers, highlighting that civil disputes are to be decided by the Civil Court and that executive authorities cannot enter into such disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J

1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.R. Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

2. The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the action on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil – Kasimabad, District – Ghazipur in foraying into the dispute relating to private property on the application filed by the respondent no. 7 before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur and as such has prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to restore the land of the petitioner in its previous position which was dispossessed by he respondents during pendency of the Appeal No. 11 of 2022 (Natthe & anothr Vs. Vikrama) pending before the learned District Judge, Ghazipur.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to take disciplinary action against the respondent nos. 2 to 6 who have illegally dispossessed the petitioner from his land without adopting any legal procedure.

3. This Court while issuing notice in the present writ petition vide interim order dated 20.7.2022 has expressed its reservation to the manner in which the authorities got indulged in a private dispute and knowingly or unknowingly side with one of the contesting parties to the litigation, resulting in filing of similar kinds of writ petitions in the past. In the said background, this Court had called upon the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil – Kasimabad, Ghazipur to file their respective personal affidavits explaining as to how they had entered into the dispute between private parties relating to the immovable property and that too during the pendency of the proceedings between parties before the Civil Court. This Court has also directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of UP, Lucknow to take action against the erring officers by initiating disciplinary proceedings.

4. The personal affidavits of DM, Ghazipur and SDM, Kasimabad, Ghazipur have been filed and the same were taken on record. Vide order dated 4.8.2022, the explanation received by the Chief Standing Counsel from the office of the Principal Secretary, Government of UP, Lucknow was also taken on record on the same date.

5. The facts of the present case lie within a narrow compass. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is Bhumidhar of Araji No. 932 measuring area 0.0900 hectare and respondent no. 7 is Bhumidhar of Arjai No. 933-A situated at village Kodari, Pargana – Pachotar, Tehsil – Kasimadabad, District – Ghazipur. Since both the Arajis are continguous, there is ensuing dispute lead to filing of Original Suit No. 679 of 2008 for permanent injunction by respondent no. 7 before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghazipur against the petitioner.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid suit was decided in favour of respondent no. 7 on 4.1.2022 and aggrieved therefrom the petitioner has preferred an appeal bearing No. 11 of 2022 before the District Judge, Ghazipur on 15.3.2022 which is still pending and, as such, according to him the matter is sub judice.

7. It is further the case of the petitioner that although the respondent no. 7 has neither filed execution of the judgment/order dated 4.2.2022 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghazipur, nor has filed any demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 during the pendency of the civil appeal, but in order to short circuit the entire civil proceedings, has filed an application on 18.4.2022 before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur for demarcation and possession of the land in dispute.

8. It seems that on the said application, the DM, Ghazipur had issued direction to the SDM, Tehsil – K